Global Warming is History.

based on data from the National Climatic Data Center ^ | 2-13-08 | dangus

[MaxMax]

You need to be a little more detailed in Step 2.

Thats just great. Now I'll have to spend the next 20 years doing it all over again.

[cogitator]

I was borrowing from a famous cartoon; here it is in case you haven't seen it before:

[MaxMax]

I remember seeing that many years ago. The reference I thought of at the time
was the missing link. This context is more appropriate.

/Salute

[aruanan]

And additional degree Celsius over the next century would probably be a good thing, and the increased carbon dioxide which caused it would have beneficial effects to agriculture which would far exceed what few negative effects might occur.

Other way around and by 6 to 8 centuries.

[freemike]

No man,, you just don't get it! All this snow is being caused by the global warming, you morons! Can't you see! Are you all so blind!!! It's the heat!! The earth is getting hotter so therefor winters are getting colder!

Shun the unbelievers!! Shuuunnnnaaa!

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

"We will likely hear more about catastrophic “global climate change” and less about catastrophic “global warming” in the coming months."

That began a couple of years ago. Being that GW is largely an unmanaged hoax to get liberals elected, we won't hear much at all about it if there's a Democrat sweep.

You're right, GW no longer "works" - it is being replaced with dire warnings about climate change, and rapid climate change.

To me this is ludicrous. Climate is weather over a long time... To talk about "rapid" climate change is simply to talk about the weather. Of course it is going to change! Here in Colorado we like to joke that you can have all 4 seasons in one day.

"Rapid climate change" is just another marketing ploy. It means that no matter what the weather does you can blame it on RCC... I don't believe in RCC any more than I believe the weather guessers can tell me what it'll be like more than about 48 to 72 hrs out...

[Dead Dog]

Not to mention the solar cycle has not picked up for it’s normal 11 year cycle and that we may be looking at a new Maunder Minimum

[Irish Eyes]

Great graphs everyone. Now we need a chart depicting the wealth of Gore due to his global warming scare tactics

[dangus]

Just so you know what I mean by my statement that the La Nina is dissipating. Below is Zone 1-2 of La Nina, the origin of the La Nina coolness. The first one is the current one, the second one is from this past summer. The weakening is undeniable. Which is not to say I don't recognize your point that the central pacific is still cold. This isn't cherry-picking: you might regard zone 1-2 as the leading indicator, and zone 3-4 as the lagging indicator. My larger point in saying that the La Nina was dissipating was to point out that there are large amounts of cooling which aren't simply explained by a growing La Nina.

[dangus]

Examining the 2000 La Nina, the precise monthly correlation is quite striking. That one was beginning to break up in Mid-February also. The belt of cold water around 60 degrees South actually existed then, also. The most striking difference was the Indian Ocean... Then it was about normal, now it is colder. (The overall average temperature of the Earth was about the same; the Atlantic seems a little warmer now, and the area west of Chile is much warmer.) (I would have described the 2000 La Nina as breaking up, also.)

But here’s the point... eight years later, we’re looking at the very same temperatures we were in 2000. 2001-2003 saw the greatest surge in temperatures in sixty years. So what if we have an equally phenomenal surge in temperatures? We’ll still be looking at the same temperatures we were looking at eight years earlier. And, in fact, those temperatures (say, in 2010?) will be the same as the temperatures were in 1998... twelve years earlier. And again... that’s if we *do* have this record-tying surge in temperatures.

So, back to the original assertion: We had a 20-year surge in temperatures. The Al Gore crowd was asserting that meant global warming would accelerating. Looking at the foreseeable future: It’s 2010. Temperatures have been stable for 12 years. Is it reasonable to say that a trend of 20 years of warming was accelerating after 12 years of stability?

[cogitator]

Regarding post 89; I didn't understand first and second. Is the one on the right the current conditions? (That's what it looks like.)

I agree with your assessment of the leading indicator.

[cogitator]

But here’s the point... eight years later, we’re looking at the very same temperatures we were in 2000. 2001-2003 saw the greatest surge in temperatures in sixty years. So what if we have an equally phenomenal surge in temperatures? We’ll still be looking at the same temperatures we were looking at eight years earlier. And, in fact, those temperatures (say, in 2010?) will be the same as the temperatures were in 1998... twelve years earlier. And again... that’s if we *do* have this record-tying surge in temperatures.

What you're ignoring, statistically, is the cumulative effect of many warm years. As I've pointed out a few times, 2005 was ranked just barely behind 1998 by NOAA, and just barely ahead of 1998 by GISS, without an El Nino present. And GISS put 2007 ahead of 1998. Regardless of ranking, there have been several warm years in a row. This is indicative of the presence of the warming trend, EVEN if this year has temperatures that are similar to 2000. When "normal" climatic conditions return, the equilibrium temperature will be higher, and we'll start to see that in the data.

I'm thinking of an analogy (which is dangerous). But... imagine being on an escalator going up. The escalator is going to keep going up, no matter what you do. You could turn around and step downward, and if you do this at the same rate that the escalator is going up, you'll stay in the same place. You could even speed up, and actually manage to move downward a little, temporarily. But the escalator is continually providing energy upward. If you get tired or miss a step, it will remorselessly take you back up.

The current climate situation is analogous to a person stepping downward at the same rate that the escalator is going up.* The energy that translates into warming temperatures is still entering and affecting the system.

* And to add to the analogy, the escalator has a rheostat that is very slowly increasing the speed that it is going up. Over an extended period of time, it will be harder and harder to go downward faster than the escalator is going up.

[dangus]

>> Is the one on the right the current conditions? (That’s what it looks like.) <<

Yes, I misspoke.